Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Book review: Development of GT Across Life Span

It really comes down to motivation and environment.

At some point, no matter who you are, things will start to require hard work. Without the capacity for hard work and then the work-multiplying things like organization, discipline, time management, prioritization, measuring tradeoffs, social skills, emotional maturity, and one's peer network, a gifted kid just becomes another drop out who just happens to learn fast.

OK, time for the devil's advocate. One some site, read that Hiliary Clinton's IQ is 125. But I think she is a perfect example of someone who maximized her potential.

Now, I think the DNA beneficiary gifted person may be able to just see things that she may not see without guidance, who scores higher on the IQ test? Because we do base a lot on scores here.

And that is the point. The DNA may still be there, like a natural runner, who doesn't look goofy when they jog, but will they optimize?

I am going on tangent. There are a number of people who saw this financial crisis coming. I happen to have been in the mix when securitization of mortgages started in the 90s. And we were out of the market more than a year ago. Julian Robertson was out of the market. There is no shortage of really smart people who said to get out, we are in for serious correction. But people seem surprised. That is the difference between tweaking the just above average and the brilliant. The above average are the pack.

And I think that happens across industries. I remember in the late 80s, the chief engineer for Oldsmobile had the best engine on the market. He had this engine sitting in his office in Lansing. Magazines wrote about this engine. But it never got into production. Really. It is amazing the stupid corporate stories there are. Really smart people running companies, but they aren't brilliant and can't find their way out of a tube. But why are they running the corporations? Because the brilliant kids are under achieving.

And that was my point, a long way around. Sorry, on the second glass of wine, it is Friday.

Ren

Look up Propulse technology, thermo-electrics, and free pistons. Its going to be a big deal.

As for engines, I talked to German engineers in Reno working for VW over 10 years ago when they were driving their diesel Rabbit protoptypes around the US. They were getting 55+ mpg even back then and those vehicles just now started hitting the market.

Right now, from my perspective, its taking 3-4 years for my ideas to make it into the real world after I write a white paper. The big problem is waiting for the need for them to appear in others' minds.

DEC had a desktop PC running windows with a secure, mature OS long before Intel or Microsoft did. VMS is still the top OS for many applications. But its basically dead. Tremendous resources have been expended recreating what was there all along, with little new to show for it after all this time.

Its human to reinvent the wheel, making it octagon in shape, then claim its better than the round wheel we have had around for a thousand years. A lot of bumpy rides must be had before the "inventor" finally arrives back at the right shape that others had laready done years before.

Its also human to play whack a mole, thinking its progress, rather than just unplug the machine. People think they get paid to whack the moles, not stop the moles.

Let's examine Hillary. Here is a speculation. Had Hillary dumped Bill when they were in Berkeley and stayed in California and made Marin her home and run for office, she'd likely be Governor, and given her penchant for doing things, a much better one. Bill would never have been Governor, but would have gone into the House and ended up as Speaker, a post he'd likely have held as long as Sam Rayburn did, and likely he would have had a greater impact there with his abilities to work with and listen to people.

The problem with intelligence and design is that the operators of the system will not be as smart. Nor will the later modifiers of it.

Things have to be made for the lower common denominator or at least explained to them or at last set up to where they can't mess it up - but they will!! ( Leave something out and the bridge falls down..)

Someone has to serve as that link - they must be smart enough to understand the smarties, but conversant enough to work with everyone. Smarties, unless they spend a lot of time with a lot of different people, will struggle to communicate properly. And communication is the key to getting things done or selling products. One assumption is that smarties' time is too valuable to spend on things others can do better.

I'm always skeptical of statements about people's IQs. Where, exactly, would one get this information? From some dishonest psychologist? Did Hillary brag about it? Yeah, right...

So I'm not buying the example from the get-go.

I do think you're right, Ren, that--as kcab suggested--*achievement* can be optimized. I just don't think people can get "more GT." I just don't. That's ability, and it's part of the package or it isn't. You have the capacity or you don't. Neglect or abuse can ruin what you've got, but you can't get more ability. Either you had the capacity from birth or you did not. Aside from prenatal vitamins to ensure brain development in a fetus and obvious basics of that nature, I just don't believe you can "make" someone more GT. Anything you do helps them *achieve* more, and that's great. But it doesn't change their LOG. That LOG necessarily was present within them or else they couldn't attain it. It's the basic definition of ability. You have it or you don't.

On the flip side, we all know that "practice makes perfect," and that if you don't use your skills, they deteriorate. Are you still GT? Yes, the ability is still present. But you're not achieving.

Consequently, anything that gets schools to stretch GT kids sounds pretty good to me. Does it make them "more GT"? No. But it does allow them to maximize their abilities.

Otherwise, what is the difference between ability and achievement? Do you see them as the same, Ren?

I think people tend to get promoted beyond what they can actually do. A guy who is a fabulous financial wizard isn't necessarily going to be a great leader of people and CEO, you know?

No evidence to back me up, but it's my theory on why the cream doesn't always seem to rise to the top...

Plus some GT people are quite hard to get along with. (Not all, but some.) That doesn't usually lead to promotions. Seeing the world differently freaks people out a lot of the time. There's a fine line between "vision for the future" and "nutcase."

Remember 'The Peter Principle?'
I'm either old or precosious - or both!

No, I don't know it. So is my theory not my own? I'd love to cite a source instead of just spouting my own half-baked ideas!

Well, you two are no older than I am, so clearly I am just ill-read!

No, let's say I was reading Shakespeare and Ezra Pound instead of reading economic theory, shall we? It would make me feel less bad about myself! :p

Yup, that's pretty much what I believe.

I must have gotten the theory from my parents through osmosis or something, because I'd swear I've never heard of the book!

BTW, the book and I were born the same year...

Ok, now I have to go look that up...

Well, whaddya know? I thought we were the same age. You may be older, but I'm clearly the one with the faulty memory!

I'm sure you're being much too hard on yourself about your leadership abilities, kcab. But if not, just assume it's the Peter Principle in action and figure you've been promoted to exactly the right spot, right?

<spoken with a good-natured twinkle in my eye>